Boma - Regular Meeting

Joey and welcome everybody to the  work session for April the 14th,   2026. Let's call the role. Alderman Barnhill  present. Alman Blandon is absent. Alderman   Caesar present. Alman Peterson here. Alman  Burgerer present. Alman Brown present. Alman   Pototts. And Vice Mayor Bagot present. And the  mayor is here. So, uh, we have item next is,   uh, citizen comments. I have no speaker cards  there, so we'll go right into item number one,   which is resolution 2026-14 to  approve a mural at Station Pizzeria. Hi, this is a resolution to approve a  mural at 7007 Morris Lane and that is   at Station Pizzeria. Um, all upkeep and  installation will be the responsibility   of the property owner and arts commission  recommends it nine to zero unanimously. Any questions? Go ahead, Alin Pots. This is the  one that Thank you. It is. Yes. Just to clarify,   this is the one item that had been sent back  by the board. You had some concerns. I'm sorry.   This is not that one. No, this one was originally  submitted to building your neighborhood services   as a sign. Okay. And so they redid it and came  back with a more artistic mural and then it came   to public arts commission. Okay. I thought it was  the one. Yeah. Is that one still coming through?   We are still working through that one. Yep.  So I just had a couple of quick questions on   this one. I was looking at this and I was seeing  the paint and how it was exposed and everything.   My long-term concern, and I recognize with the  art commission approved this and and they like it,   is upkeep and maintenance on the exterior of  this building because there's it looked like   there was a combination of where the paint  was going to be applied to the building and   then also to it looked like there are some I  beams that had been artistically turned that  

they were going to be using as well. And  then along the exterior of the building,   the there were individualized like four foot by  maybe six foot tall murals working their way down   the the wall. So could could you speak to that or  is that something from the art commission? Yeah,   the arts commission did review all of that  and they thought that it would be fine and   that the upkeep could be done by the property  owner. Um there is one I believe that's inside   of the building. It's just you can see  it from the street, but then there's also   on the outside of the building as well. Okay,  Burger, do you have a comment? Um, yeah. I I'm   not sure what I should comment on because I'm  having a hard time with this one. And uh it's   on the side of the building there. Part of it on  the side and part is inside. Inside and outside,   but it's on the side of the building, not the  front. Um wasn't the way it was situated. Yeah,   it's kind of on the side. Yes, it still faces  Morris Lane. It's kind of in there. Slide eight. I think I'll keep my comments myself. I'm  not sure I can vote for this one. Okay. Yeah,   it's pretty pretty funky. Keep moving along then.   Item two is update discussion on the  South Clean Water Facility timeline. This is a followup. We had a request from the  board to just sort of give you an overview   of where we were in terms of process for the  planning for the south clean water plant. And   so we want to give you an overview. Things are  moving along. Again, we're targeting this for   around the 2034 2035 time frame for bringing that  additional plant and treatment capacity online   and would be the first of what could potentially  be three 6 million gallon a day components to a  

a clean water facility in the southeast part  of Franklin. So Michelle's going to take you   through that. Okay. Hi there. Okay. So this is as  Eric was talking about um this is kind of more of   the planning level update and then we'll have a  financial update in a couple board meetings to   come as we're still working through some of those  details. So it's just a little bit of background.   Um the initial contract the the initial kind of  evaluation contract if you remember was approved   in 2020 so height of online meetings. Um so  it was with Hazen to kind of perform that at   capacity kind of where we were going as a system  what some of the treatment options part of that   scope was to do the demonstration facility as well  um and then came along ARPA uh we received uh 5.6   6 million competitive ARPA grants. So we actually  had to apply for it. Um and then so specifically   for reuse um so the way kind of ARP ARPA umbrella  was they had you know TAC had allocated some money   for different kind of resiliency projects. Um we  received so 5.6 million was the largest amount of   a reuse grant that TAC had given out. So that was  pretty exciting. um some of the timeline. So the   the the timeline that ARPA started allowed us to  it kind of happened in the center of when or it   was a handful of months after the Hazen work  had started. So we started getting reimbured   for all of that work, the construction of the  demonstration facility. Um and then you approved   an amendment a handful of of Bulma meetings ago to  for Hazen to finish up that work which is the last   part of that competitive grant work. Um, so that's  still uh we're still finishing up that covering.   ARPA intends ARPA needs to be done by July of this  year. So we're still on track to meet that. Um,   so as Eric was talking about the the alternative  that you all selected was um the construction of a   six MGD facility and that alternative included. So  in that six is 2 million gallons of the advanced  

treatment and the intention of that is to be able  to go to the reservoir to provide a resilient   water source. um our tenative plans are our  facility would be online by 2034 and that would   be capacity until 2049. So we're dealing with  some pretty long time frames here. Um there was   the resolution of intent that was passed last year  to plan, design, construct, and then operate the   facility. So just to kind of bring us up to speed  with where we are. So, I know you all are working   with us on the Seymar on the city hall project,  but just to kind of give you some highlights of   why we're intending to use Seymar on the plan  of this job. So, I know it is the it'll be the   largest capital project that we undergo. Um, we  can start work on it early much like city hall,   right? That's kind of one of the benefits of it.  Some of those early, you know, grading and earth   work kind of things we can do early. One of the  greatest things that we're looking at it is the   guaranteed maximum price is is it can be set and  then we can work to stay underneath that, right?   So, if we're getting to that point, um, you know,  we know that we need to pull back a little bit and   maybe do some re-evaluation of some options. So,  back when we did the other plant on Claude Yates,   we did a traditional design bid build, right?  Where we put it out for bid and and you got   what you got. We didn't, you know, we pulled it  back. We tried to pull it back a little bit the   second time we bid it, but we were stuck with what  we got. This is going to help us, this is going to   help us stay within those constraints a little bit  better. um everything is in um the way that we're   going to approach it is very an open book. So the  contractor has to maintain kind of transparency   and wants to wants us to build the plant, right?  So they're going to do everything they can for us   to build the plant because the option is for us  to take that off-ramp which is not what they want   to do, right? So there is a little bit of benefit  and you may already know this from the city hall   project, but that's that's kind of what we're  shooting for. Um let's see. So there are because   the south plant does not fall within our water  district, there are a handful of other projects  

that we need to do in preparation for that. Um  so one of them, you probably saw it as you were   driving kind of on 65 north on 65. We had to lay  a water line from um the park all the way down to   tie into Goose Creek or to Long Lane really. Um  so that work has been completed. So we planned   that and designed that that needed to be done  for the park to be able to go vertical for the   structures to be created. Um, so that's already  that's already been done. We are doing right now   in design there is another water man that's coming  from the north side of Matt Catcher down through   Oakwood somewhere. We're still working on the  exact alignment of that that's going to tie into   Lewisburg right there at Ascot Lane. Um, that is  that's still in the planning phase construction.   We'd like to see if we can start knocking some of  that off as well. There's another one that's going   to go from the um the west side of 65 to the east  side of 65 once we can get the bore underneath the   interstate with a park project done. So that's  the other that's the third project that has to   be done. Um and then there's so we I we have these  labeled as realignment projects, right? So we need   to also figure out where that flow split is  going to occur and start pulling flow south   to the south plant as well. that will likely have  to be done in in conjunction with the plan being   built. We can't do that prior because I can't  send Flow South if I don't have a plant there,   right? That makes sense. Um, but we might need  to send more than just Redwing to that point. So,   our intention is just to turn Redwing around,  but we might need to go more into the system and   pull that down. But also the intent with that  is we're doing as much as needed right now,   but most of that if that's to occur when we look  at development and how that occurs in the system   for that to be developerled infrastructure to do  some of those um improvements. Okay. So just to   revisit some of those flow projections that  I know when we passed impact fees there was   a large discussion on continually evaluating  this. Um our average flow rate has increased  

since we began looking at this. So back um in  2020 um it is so we're now at about a 13.34   MGD. So our plant is capacity is 16 MGD. So we're  right on track where we think we should be. Um the   population is continuing to grow. But what we  did is um when we pulled that back into looking   at how many houses are in the 2025 planning  report, we're still at we come up with a 343   um single family unit equivalent, right? So our  basis for impact fee methodology is 350 gallons,   right, per single family unit. So we're on track  with that. So we're we're this is a calculation   that we're continually doing to ensure that we're  still within that within those um projections. So   we talked about the 2025 development report. The  the um so the planning period for that report was   from 2015 to 2025. It shows that the housing has  increased about um close to 9,000 units, which is   a 31% increase. When you pull that over 10 years,  it's about a a 3% increase. So in our most recent   cost of service study, we had assumed a 3% growth  annually. So we're still on track with that.   So everything is um meshing out fairly well. So  the operations one of the you know the resolution   that was um presented that was agreed that was  voted upon last January. We had talked about   operating it. You know this is this is pretty  up in the air right because we're a bit away   um but we had we looked at kind of when we intend  to bring need to bring operators online when we're   going to see that ramping up a little bit. Um,  and so we have estimated about three operators   per shift, potentially four depending on how the  plant gets split up, but I we won't know that   obviously until we get further into design. Um, so  that's, you know, that's a minimum of 12 operator,   I'm sorry, minimum of nine operators, potentially  12. Um, let's see. Um, the we would obviously need  

another administrative assistant. We would need  a superintendent, an assistant superintendent.   Um and then probably an a minimum of two  dedicated maintenance staff for the maintenance   um that we have. Um the superintendents would  be brought online about 6 months prior to kind   of get them acclimated to the operator training  and what our expectations are as a department.   Um we've presented before a lot about our hazard  control plan. So un kind of making sure that they   understand how we're going to keep our operation  safe. Um and then we would bring um the operators   and everyone on board about 3 to 6 months. Um  let's see. So here's kind of our timeline. Now   probably look at the colored kind of Gant chart  that we have there. That is a little bit easier to   kind of look at as far as when when that's going  to happen um logistically throughout the time.   So we have um we submitted our permit application  la two weeks ago, right? So, we have not received   word from TK yet that it's been accepted, but we  anticipate that anytime soon. Um, we submitted   it a bit ago. T didn't like they wanted some  additional water quality monitoring done. So,   we performed that over last year's uh dry season,  so we had that ready for submitt this time. So,   we're we should be in agreement with everything.  Um, they have a timeline of 365 days to issue a   permit. So, we've anticipated that. Uh, but  that has the design starting before that.   So during that time, um, we anticipate potentially  bringing a SEAR, so the general contractor on   board either later this fall or very early next  year as we start kind of that process of really,   you know, as we get into design. One of the  benefits of having a Semar is bringing them   on board early so we can start that process  of understanding constructibility needs. Um,   we got the staffing on there. So we have an  initial startup of um mid 2032 but Tekk has  

kind of expressed some kind of draft guidance  that they would like us to operate for a year to   understand kind of the you know our hazard control  plan before we actually start sending water to the   reservoir. So I so we have our general timeline  is showing that as um so for that year we would   be sending to the river. So from 2032 to 2033  and then at 2033 we would be actually sending   water to the reservoir for treatment. Um let's  see. That's all I've got for this one. Is there   any questions? Vice Mayor, thank you for this.  um very informative and good for the public to   see that we're proactively working on sewer and  infrastructure issues. Uh even though it doesn't   make the news or maybe it will tonight because  of this wonderful presentation. Um but one one   item was that the in the past presentations  we've seen that it it would be either uh the   the the water after the whole process it could  either go into the river or or directed to the   um reservoir. It seems like we're kind of focused  on the reservoir which is good. I think that's   that's a good thing. Is that is is re you know  there was some talk about you know putting it   back into the river and increasing the flow and  then taking it out and then taking out kind of   just touch on that possibly. Yeah. So the amount  that we can send to the reservoir is limited by   the size of the water plant. Um so while it would  be great to send all six MGD to the reservoir,   we can't our water plant is not rated for that  capacity. So the water plant is rated for two.   So that's as much as we could send there and then  the rest would be going to the river. Got it. Um   now six is obviously not that's not the flow  we're going to start up with. So those would  

probably be you know proportional out. Um but we  would still be sending highly treated flow to the   river which would be helping to augment you know  during those low flow summer months. Would that   would I would we're purchasing water from Harpath  Valley at a pretty steady rate I would think. Is   that any financial projections on I guess we don't  know till we know but I would think it's a lot of   money we're spending purchasing water. Would  this help in any the utility in any capacity   of that expense? Yeah, it would help to offset  some of that. So we wouldn't solely be reliable   on this. We would need, you know, there are lots  of be upgrades that would need to happen, but this   would certainly help offset some of that that  minimum bill that we are required to get. Yeah.   Okay. We don't have those financial projections  yet because we're still working on that's really   based off of how much water we start up with,  right? Which is still kind of in that phase. As   long as the long term that's because definitely  help offset cost to rateayers. Definitely. Yman, thanks sir. Great presentation. Very excited.  Um, yeah, we will be best friends as we're going   through this and keeping keeping all of those  neighbors well informed as we go through this   until 2034. Um, question that I had was back on  slide four and it kind of brought up kind of a   part A and a part B, but you were talking about  um, this was on maybe it's not which I don't I   think it's the slide before this one. The slide.  Okay. I don't have them numbered. And uh you were   just talking about boring and uh the first  part that I had is are we currently going to   bore so that we can expand with the future in mind  regarding the growth of the plant or do we wait to   bore until that need is there? No. So there is  in the in the park construction now there is a  

bore that is planned. Okay. So once that bore is  complete right and we and we're able to accept it   then that's when that will happen. So it'll be  one of the So the bore is a large steel pipe,   right? And it'll be one of the lines within that  bore. Okay. Yeah. Does it serve both that phase   and future phases as we expand? So that would be  sufficient to help us over the long haul for not   just this phase. Yes. Okay. That's that's where  I'm going with that. Thank you, Eric. And that   actually kind of takes me to the next piece and  this is more of an engineering question uh maybe   for Eric is knowing that we've got the the boring  piece of it is did we sit down with staff to talk   about if we're having to go underneath  the interstate right now and it's if it's   already there did we already plan for any other  utilization of that of that board area? I it's for   this specific purpose. It's only for this. Yeah.  I do I do believe there's also like fiber that's   intended on going through that conduit going  through that bore as well. Um I think the reclaim   line is intending on going through there too. So  there's a couple other utilities that are that   we're intending. Okay. Yep. And then the the part  B of this is really thinking much further down the   road. Um but with the boring that's taking place  in Nashville talking about the loop that'll go   from downtown Nashville to the airport. Is there  any considerations regarding this board line that   we're using for our water treatment plant or  for the plant itself uh regarding any future   boring that might be going down the interstate or  uh involving that you know Elon Musk's group? I   don't know what they're call what the name of it  is right now. It's my understanding that they're   boring well below where the utilities are.  everything that I Okay. Just want to keep that   on our radar if I mean you're saying if someone  else were to come in after us and want to bore.  

Y they'd have to go around us or under us, right?  Yeah. Okay. And then the last question that I've   got since you brought the timeline up uh and this  was on your uh your Gant chart there at the end.   Um, so I've received feedback from different  neighbors or neighborhoods I should say in   HOAs that are on that east side of 65 and in  that Berry Farms area when we're looking at um   irrigation and potable water uh and the pressure  that they're actually experiencing right now.   So I wanted to see if you could maybe speak  to that, speak to high level what the plan is   because as we go through these phases uh we will  experience more droughts I'm sure and I want to   know or they want I want them to know as well what  our highle plan is and then when it happens we'll   be able to provide them with a deeper deeper dive  into it. Yeah. So the way that um I mean obviously   the design we've not finalized the design. The  way that the reclaim is pulled off at our current   plant is that the reclaim is pulled off before  anything goes to the river. I anticipate that   being the same thing now. There are times in our  plan on Claude Yates where we have nothing going   to the river because it is during the summer it  is all being pulled off for reclaim. Right. So   that could essentially be the same thing here.  you know, during it's typically like the 6:00 to   9ish in the time in the morning when everyone's  filling their ponds and irrigating their golf   courses and stuff. Um, so it would having having  the plan right there would boost the pressure,   right? Boost it even more, but it would also  provide a capac you know more capacity for them to   use. Y right. So it would only it would you know  this plan could definitely benefit them when once   we get to that point. Yeah. and and I recognize  that. What I'm getting to is before that happens,   I want to make sure that there's a plan as you  just made reference between 6:00 to 9 that maybe   there's a recommended schedule for the east side  of Franklin to do their irrigation or to do to  

have those water usages. They have one time frame  and we'll say the west side is also using it at   at a different time. So, we looked at that. We  looked at that back in back before we had built   the reclaim pump station. I think what some of  the problem is and I can certainly go back and   investigate this with my team right now is that we  are bypassing the reclaim because the reclaim goes   in that Hobos I'm sorry the Hobos break right now  is that same reclaim line. So what we essentially   have is we are adding some some head losses as we  bypass that pipe. So we have a pipe on the ground   that's connected from one end to the other so we  can continually provide reclaimed water. Right?   There's a little bit of additional head loss  that happens through that through that pipe.   It's a much it's a little bit of a larger pipe and  it's working off a pressure from the system. So,   let me um we've re-energized that kind of at  the request of Berry Farms. Um I can I can go   back and definitely look and um and make sure  that that's the same pressures um that we were   providing before, but I have a feeling that's  probably contributing to those losses. Okay,   good. Yeah, I' I'd appreciate that. Thank you.  Okay, Graham. Yeah, enjoy your time with Michelle.   I always I always have. So I'm happy to share.  Um quick question. I saw a note in there that in   about 9 years we would we would um deplete this  capacity. So in this timeline about when would   that trigger a conversation for us? I think one  of the things we've learned is we just waited too   long on some of these conversations. Maybe I mean  we were smart to get some land and we were smart   to forward think here but rates and everything  else. We just waited a little bit too long on   some things. So in the capacity, if we're 9  years out from exhausting the capacity that   all this is going to add, at what point in this  Gant chart is there a trigger to thinking about   expanding in the next phase again because that  would fall somewhere in the back end of this of  

this development here. So what I'll I'll start  and you can chime in here too. Uh the general   planning context looking at development patterns  and and what our experience has been is this new   plant and six MGD would get us around 15 years of  capacity from when we open the 9-year I think is   between when we did this plan this this planning  and we had you act on the resolution but we've got   15 years or so from when we fully go operational  on this plant in terms of projected capacity and   the development patterns we've seen over the last  three decades probably would be fair. So that that   that's how we extrapolated that out and looked at.  So when you look at these three phases of each six   uh MGD each, you've got about 45 to 50 years  of capacity available at this site with three   different phases. Right. So part of that part of  that planning process initially was, you know,   if we went with an 8MGB plant, right, that would  be great and that would give us more capacity,   but it's also more expensive right now, right? So  the debt service would be a bit larger. And it was   kind of a I think it was kind of like a give and  play a little bit with what would be, you know, a   2MGD plant would be much cheaper, but not but we'd  be building one and then we go in the next one,   right? So that would not be any fun for anyone  either. I think one of the things we looked at   too was the bottom line total capacity because if  you did eight you'd be doing eight and eight and   you'd pretty much be done. We looked at this doing  three sixes got us a little more capacity over the   long haul and a little bit more flexibility  about when to do phases cuz it's great to say   you know but we may not always grow the same pace  we've been growing at for the last 30 years that   that world may change. So we have the ability to  adapt with three smaller uh phase slightly smaller   phases that also max out the capacity that we  can get at this site. That was the thinking  

uh when we went through this and thought about the  various options. Okay. Okay. Does that Okay. Yep.   Alman Barnhill, then I'll get all of them further.  Yes. You mentioned that you were going to,   let's see, treat 6 million gallons. 2 million of  it would go back into the water treatment plant   reservoir. Now, and you also said that that might  help somewhere along the way in reducing some of   the usage on the Harper Valley Utility District  water that they furnish. How would that do that?   So it would um because the water that we purchase  is just for our water district, right? Which is   just one of the four. Um it would help to lower  that demand. So the the demand that we have to   purchase because we would have a consistent supply  of water. So right now we only purchase water from   Harpath Valley when we can't pull from the river,  which you know happens late August, September,   October. It's kind of now into November still. So  instead of having to purchase 10 million gallons   from Harpath from Harpath Valley during that time,  we would only potentially need to purchase eight.   So you would plan on running the weight the water  treatment plant then add its capacity of 2 million   gallons per day. Well, the capacity is actually  higher than that. Yeah. There's three treatment   trains that would take us up to about 3.9. Is that  right? 3.9. Close to Yeah, close to three. Okay.   Um so right now we don't run it that high because  we're limited by the amount of water we can pull   from the river. So, we've never run we've never  run it that high because we've not had a need to,   right? But it's our plant is rated to go that  high. So, so what if so what if you pump more   than 2 million gallons from the from the treated  water into the reservoir? What can you run through   or go through at the water treatment plant? How  much per day can you treat? 3 million gallons. I I  

think each train is 1.3 million gallons a day. And  then the the other question is is not necessarily   how much water is used in the city of Franklin,  but how much is used uh with the the residents   who are on the Franklin water system? How much  what what do we how many mill how many millions   of gallons per day? I don't I'm not interested  in HB&Ts. I'm not sure particularly Milster,   Malry Valley, any of those. they pull off what do  we need per day to furnish water to our residents.   So it can it our our the amount of water that  we that we furnish. So what we purchase versus   what we make can sometimes vary our daily  demand can sometimes vary between six and 10,   right? It can go, you know, 10 during those dry  months when we don't have enough, right? So if we   could now it during those during the wet months  right when our demand is lower we can furnish a   a good portion of our water not all of it but  we can furnish it because we can pull enough   from the river during those dry months we don't  we can't pull anything from the river so we end   up purchasing a lot more from Harpet Valley than  we typically do. Does that make sense? Yeah. So,   so, so the other question not necessarily related  last month, last year we had conserved water. The   year before that we had conserved water. The  year before that, I don't remember whether   we did or did not. But we should been able to,  if we're doing what we're saying we're doing,   we should be able then to eliminate that those  peaks and valleys of conserve water. Don't use   it this way, don't use it that way. Is that  is that a fair statement? So, it's a it's a   let's say it could help. It's it's a Yeah, it's a  fair statement. I would be careful to say that it  

prevents it in any situation because be careful.  Yeah. So I it would certainly help because there   are times we cannot treat. We can't withdraw and  we've gotten to a point where we're unable to use   our treatment capacity and we're wholly reliant  on Harpath Valley water. Correct. So this would   lessen that those times and create a longer runway  for us to produce water and buy less uh from HBUD. Perfect. Yes. Agreed. So I I I mean I'm hoping  it would it would reduce those times because   as Eric was saying, we don't have a consistent  water supply, right? So this would help us with   that. More consistent water. A more consistent.  Yeah. There's also some unintended benefits of   this water is going to be a lot cleaner than  water we pull from the river. Yeah. What what   Absolutely. And that's that's the purpose  of this is this this water will be cleaner   than the water that we're pumping out of the  river right now. Right. Yes. Cuz upstream there   could be a dairy farm somewhere. Somewhere.  Yeah, upstream. In College Grove. Probably   in College Grove. You finished there with I'm  finished. Yeah. Thanks for enlightening us on   the dairy farm. It's there. Holdenburg. Um yeah,  I think I've got most of my questions answered.   Um, so the site that we would build down there  would be to uh 15 years uh 2049. Mhm. So will   we take a look at possibly um looking forward  to what happens after 2049 when we're forward   thinking because you know we've sort of drugg our  feet a bit on where we should be right now. But   um you know not I mean we've done good  planning but still we really did leave  

this go for a while. So I think we're because  that can't be expanded then anymore that that's   limited this this the plant we're talking about  now 18. Um well no we're so we're as Eric was   mentioned we're looking at three three phases.  So a six a 12 and an 18. Yeah. So if I mean if   we go beyond 18 is that what you're Yeah. at  at I am not meant to be here. You are. Hey,   you're literally talking 60 plus 60 to 70 years.  Well, after after 49, I'm talking the first phase.   The first phase one of three. That's where that  gets us. Yes. So, I misunderstood that. Yeah. So,   so if we're I mean my I'm glad I asked. My  chart didn't go to 2049 cuz then the graph gets   so small. I thought No, that's not what you said.  Okay. But if you think I mean if you so 2049 right   probably eight 8-ish years before that we would  need to start planning for the plan. So we would   need to start the design process. We would need  to start expansion. Yes. Right. So got it. Yeah.   I thought I heard that. Yeah. So it's not 2049  and then start planning. It's you know backing   up from that and then the next phase being online  at 2049 if we're still going the path that we are.   Sure. Yeah sense. Thank you. Alderman Caesar  and then I'll get Alderman Peterson. In fact,   I'm going to ask to let Alderman Peterson go  because she always fusses at me if I she moved   closer to you. And you are a rookie there. Happy  to let barely a rookie now. No, no. I I was just   thinking what percentage of the population of the  city of Franklin has city of Franklin water. So we is that 30%. Something I was going to It's  around 30. It's around 30%. I'm not sure of  

the exact percentage. Yeah. Okay. City water. The  city water. Yes. Yeah. 3% of our population. Yes.   My calculations say 20, but I may be wrong. I'm  not a math major like Alderman Peterson. 33 right   now. Alman Caesar. Thank you, Mayor. Alderman  Barnhill got really close to the question I was   asking and I thought he was going to hit it,  but maybe maybe just one more question about   the six million gallons that we can process a  day, the 2 million that our current water plant   can facilitate kind of processing and turn around  and then you've got this $4 million or 4 million   4 million gallon amount that has to go back into  the river. When we started looking at this, did   we consider opportunities to look at an additional  reservoir or other areas where we could store some   of this water to enhance our overall capacity?  And maybe you did. I I don't I wasn't privy to   those discussions to enhance the the water that we  that we treat again to distribute. Well, I suppose   if the if the treatment plant can can produce $6  million of or 6 million gallons of treatable water   today um in the future, you can only process two  to get it water potable. Right. The other four   has to go back to the river. Correct. Right. Is  there a way because we only have 2 million gallon   reservoir? Right. So, you can only send 2 million  into the reservoir or am it's aund 115 million   gallon reservoir. Well, there we go. That's the  That's the math I was looking for. So, okay,   if we have $15 million reservoir or $15 million  gallon reservoir, you can tell I talk about money   a lot. Um, is there a way that we can do something  else with that 4 million gallons rather than put   it back into the river without disrupting  what our environmental concerns uh regulate,  

our environmental agencies regulate? I mean what  we what we're not considering now is I mean if if   if if the board wanted us to improve you know to  increase capacity at the water plant that would   also be an option too. This is that's not part  of this. Um there's some cost limiting factors   to that. So right now the limiting your governor  there's that $2 million 2 million gallons. It's   really the capacity treatment capacity at your  drinking water plant. Yeah. And how that relates.   So it's not about a reservoir to hold it. It's  Yeah. And so what we did when we did that plant   upgrade, we did look at capacity. It is three  treat what? Three treatment trains at that   plant of 1.3 million gallons each. We typically  operate two at a time and cycle through the three,   but we have the ability to run all three if we  wanted to. Uh so you have up to about 3.9 million   gallons of capacity. So you can do it that way.  We did have some broad discussions years ago when   we were doing some of the integrated planning  that it just didn't seem cost-effective to to   add more treatment capacity there. You certainly  could revisit that, but that has ramifications   across the whole system. You really have to dig  in on that, but given the size of what we produce   and the capacity at the time, that was what made  sense. This this does change that math a little   bit. It largely allows us to keep the the the  system going and that reservoir at a higher level   more consistently which will help with what what  Michelle was describing. I suppose that's the root   of the question, right? Rather than just wasting  the water into the river, if we could retain   it because the the reservoir is the 170 million  gallons so that it gives us 3 weeks or whatever,   we have some runway with the with water. Um, and  if there's an opportunity for us to preserve some   of that water rather than putting it back into the  river, even that would be something I'd want us  

to think about. There there are some benefits to  putting it in the river as well. Correct. In terms   of Yeah. So, yeah, there's a lot of um it's not  a total waste in that way. There is some benefit   in terms of flow, right? Yeah. So, we um I also  I also didn't fail to mention is that we're not   going to give up our A- wrap. So, our A-rap allows  us to withdraw water from the res from the river.   Yeah. So, we would still have that in the case of,  you know, when I talk about a hazard control plan,   right? That's ensuring that the water that we  send to the reservoir is safe, right? Is of is   of our standards. And if that were to not be the  case, then we would pull water from, you know,   the the harpath if we needed to. So, that would  that would be our plan B essentially. Um, but I mean, it's not something we haven't thought  about. It's just expanding the water plant was   not in the cards right now. The other thing to  mention too is that the um we plan to divert the   2 MGD to solely go through advanced treatment.  So the entire 6 MGD will not be going through   advanced treatment. Um there will only be the two  that will be going that's intended to go to the   reservoir. If we were to put the entire 6 MGD  through the advanced treatment, it is costly.   That's that's another critical point. I assume  they both came out at the same level and one   takes a right. looked at that and it was I mean  it was it's it's costly and then really there is   no regulatory requirements for us to be advanced  to treating to purified standards to send water   to the river right now. You know there may be  someday and that could be something someone else   you know we may think about in the future but at  this point in time there's not. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. But it's being built. I think what for  us the decision point here or things we want to   make is that in the future if we have water  issues we we could expand. We have six at our   water treatment we have six million gallons  a day that we could you know shift over if  

we can't. So is that fair to say that like we're  building this so that I guess I don't understand   how the when you say we're redirecting flows  like in the future is it a big deal to redirect   all 6 million through the advanced treatment  and then go I mean is that a big retrofit I   mean with pumps you can do anything right I mean  but is that a big retrofit to make to the water   plant it will be large so I mean so there are  some there's some concrete there's some large   concrete issues some hydraulic restrictions at the  water it's designed And is that part of like the   expansion? I think what you we see water issues  all over the country where in Harpath Valley is   great until it's not and something happens. So I  don't know. It's probably a design. Y'all think   can think through that and you probably will, but  I think we'd want the possibility at some point   in the future if we needed to retrofit this. So 6  million was advanced treated and did need to go to   the reservoir that we would not have to redesign  the whole plant or have some big major. You see   what I'm saying? Yeah. So it's the I will say the  the older part of the water plant right now is the   hydraulic restrictions, right? Those basins were  not built, you know, you've all been at the water   plant. Those basins were not built to treat 6 MD  of water. So we would need to expand those. We   would need to do, you know, some of that piping.  It would be it would be a large, you know, it   would be it would be an effort. I'm talking about  the new plant. Oh, the new plant. I'm talking   about designing the new plant where 4 million is  not going through advanced treatment. Yeah. Oh,   yeah. It'll be it'll be in a it'll be in a mod I  say modular in a sense of it can be expanded if we   need to. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry I misunderstood.  No, I should. Thank you. I had a question about   the U water reclamation facility. bio bioolids um  would need to uh have some modifications. Have we   got enough capacity there? No, there is enough  capacity. So the existing solid structure was  

built to or all of the all of the the existing  solids facility at the north plant, we're calling   it the north plant was built to accommodate two  plants, but we don't have a way to get solids from   the outside of that facility into that facility.  And so that's what we talk about. So whether it be   um through a conveyor, you know, like we  we've talked about having dump trucks go from   the south plant to the north plant at night,  right? So they're not dealing with traffic,   they're not dealing with odor concerns and  and then how would they physically get from   the outside of the plant to inside the plant.  That's what the upgrades we're talking about   would need to happen. Got so conveyor belt,  you know, dump truck, whatever it would be.   Uh and my last comment would be uh the little  deja vu of uh whenever we upgraded the water   treatment plant. That was a long arduous process.  It'd be worth going back to watch it if it's on   tape. Yeah. Yeah. There was a lot of struggles  with that and so I'm glad we did because we   have two sources which to your point uh is really  good. Most communities don't have to. So, I mean,   right now with having Harpath Valley and the  river, you know, we've got two sources, which   is not what most communities do. So, we're in a  really good spot. I mean, that was seen in 2010,   right? We were able to continue producing water  when Harpath Valley wasn't. Ready to keep rolling,   please? Cuz I think you're up next again.  Resolution 2026. Hear me. Hear me more. A   resolution authorizing providing for the  financing and engineering design of clean   water facility project including authorizing the  execution of application contractual agreements   other necessary documents and made certain  represent uh for u amount of $17,69,000 and acceptance of $5,800,000 of  principal forgiveness. Yeah. Okay. So,  

um, this is the SRF loan. Actually, I'm gonna  Dylan prepared this and he is much better. Um,   so this is for the pre-esign of the new clean  water facility, right? Let me interrupt you   a second. I've been pointed out I need to uh  comment that there will be a public hearing on   April 28th regarding this. So, now go ahead.  Okay. Um so in 2024 we submitted an interest   um you know an application to get on their prior  to get on SRS priority ranking list for the design   of this facility. Right. Um we received word  of that. We also received word that we received   grant monies for um emerging contaminants um  for removal of emerging contaminants. We didn't   know how much it was at the time. We've since  learned that it's the that's the 5.8 million of   um principal forgiveness. Um, so SRF ranked  us on the priority ranking list. They are just   now getting around to giving us the load. So we  have um we have this is we have to have a public   hearing in order to take on that debt contract  or to take on that contract um to authorize that   money. Um this 17.6 million was included in the  most recent cost of service study because we knew   that we were we this would be coming at some point  in time. Um the so we've got in here the emerging   contaminants. it'll be as principal forgiveness,  which is essentially just like a grant. So,   it reduces that um amount to 11 six. Is that what  it is? Um and then we'll go to this next one. So,   on the 28th, we'll have the public hearing  and you will be authorizing a resolution   um with these loan terms in it. So, an interest  rate of 2.35%. So, design loans have a repayment   period of 5 years. So, not the typical 30 years  that we see for construction that we have.   um principal forgiveness of the 5.8 million.  Um the security is the full faith and credit  

of the city of Franklin. Dispersement method is  um so we have to we pay upfront and then we get   reimbursed by Tekk um afterwards. And then we  talked about the debt coverage was included in   the 2025 impact cost of service study that was  done by Hazen with Fernando came and presented   all those times. Um so March or April 28th um  we recommend that you acknowledge resolution   2026 29 authorizing the loan to proceed.  The public meeting will be held at the   um voting meeting um the consideration  the consideration of the authorizing   resolution and then the deadline to return all  the documents is shortly after that on May 12th. So this is everything that's in the resolution.  Um, I've already said this multiple times.   Dylan is very thorough. We need to let you  all know about this. Does anyone have any   questions? I I want to clarify the term  acknowledgement is mean is is used here,   but you would pass it. You have to vote on  it. Yes. I'm sorry. You're not acknowledging   you are today. You're acknowledging that it's  coming. Yes. I'm sorry. Misspoke about that. 5.8 million forgiveness  and 2.3 sounds really good.   ready to go on to f any questions on that.  Are you ready to go to number four, which is   uh Fourth of July fireworks display at the park  at Harllanddale? So, uh I I wanted to bring this   forward for uh some direction from the board.  Uh we have our traditional fireworks display at   the park at Harllanddale Farm. Uh that cost of  that display has risen over the years to now to   where it is at $50,000 to do the 20-minute display  that we do. Uh that is right at my administrative   authority. There had been some desire to enhance  our 250th celebration. And so we did ask the  

fireworks uh folks to um consider uh what that  would look like, what that would cost us. And the   proposal that we received back is an additional  $20,000 would get us 10 more minutes of display   and larger shells throughout the display. So you  would have you'd go from 20 minutes to 30 minutes   and you would have uh larger shells sort of  dispersed throughout that that 30 minute show. So   uh that is above my administrative authority.  uh wanted to get board direction if you're   comfortable where we are today with the 20 minute  show or you want to enhance it to the the larger   show that would would take me a little bit past  my authority and we would work through getting   that approval. Uh that that's really the the the  straightforward ask. Uh we are doing a number of   things just as a quick side note to enhance what  we're doing in community events around the 250th.   Uh so uh we have had a uh a mural that's out with  the uh the working with Franklin tomorrow that'll   be at the um the Arbor Day celebration this  weekend. So that'll be available for folks to   participate there. There are uh mosaic tiles that  people can paint that would be part of that that   mosaic. We're adding some different things to  various events throughout. Um, Touch a Truck I   think could have some exciting elements too that  that are enhanced this year as we're just trying   to make uh our country's 250th birthday a little  more special with some of our community events.   And this is one of those examples. Uh we'll have  shortly launched a um communitywide calendar with   the Convention and Visitors Bureau that has not  only city events but some other community events   that that are enhanced and centered around uh the  the celebration of our our country's birthday.   So, uh, this specific question though is does the  board want us to enhance this? Uh, we can we can,   uh, make that part of our additional capacity  in the budget to accommodate it, uh, if the  

board so chooses. And just looking for that  direction from you tonight. Yes. Question. Uh,   is all all of that all those funds both of those  funds 50 and the 20 come strictly from the city   or do we have any partnerships with that? The  fireworks display is a city funded event. Have   we ever asked about We are exploring some other  sponsorship opportunities, but we don't have   that at this point. We've got to commit. Could  we've got to commit to this? Sure. No, I I would   say let's but there are some other events we are  looking at some sponsorships, but I'd say let's   go ahead and commit and not opposed to you uh  putting out the ask to some corporate partners   and saying they would like to sponsor with that.  Uh I think we should ask. Doesn't hurt to ask. And I know you're looking at other sponsorships  for other things. Exactly. So, but we're having   those discussions. I think it would also be  prudent for us to also put that out there. So,   if somebody wanted to partner and put  in 10,000 Mhm. 5,000, 10,000, 20,000,   who knows? So, I think we should make sure we're  asking for that. We will put that on the table   with some of these opportunities,  too. We just need to let them know. Okay. Item five is resolution 2026-18 rescending  resolution resolution rescending resolution   2022-84 resolution granting authority to city  administrator and adopting a new resolution   granting new authorities to the city administrator  over 75 it's 70 so this is uh actually if we do   this uh I could do number four actually within  this but there are two specific elements that we   are asking for your consideration on related  to previously granted authority to the city   administrator. Uh we update this from time to time  and there are two specific elements we wanted to   to uh add to this consideration. One is to clarify  the authority uh for uh city administrator to  

exercise the acquisition of property related  to rightaway and easements on projects.   There's some specific language Sean I can describe  that we wanted to clarify that um you have a   general authority that's been granted currently  up to $50,000 and we wanted a clarification that   that could also be applied to the acquisition of  rightaway and easements for pro for um capital   projects. So th this is a further clarification  for that component. And then the uh the second   point that we ask for your consideration is if you  would consider increasing that authority from the   50,000 that it's at today up to 75,000. So those  are two specific elements. Everything else would   remain the same. You provide authority for us  to enter into those contracts on your behalf. Uh   as you see on this uh 7:00 meeting, I report all  those actions that I take on your behalf to you.   uh and we would continue that practice.  But we use it for grant applications,   we use it for entering into various contracts  uh so that we can keep things moving on on lower   dollar amounts. Uh one of the things I always  emphasize to you because I have the authority   doesn't mean I always use it. There are times  I bring things to you that are well within the   granted authority because I know you may want to  weigh in on it or we may want your feedback on it   before we do it. So just because you've granted  it does not mean I I always use it or we always   use it. Uh there are times we bring it to you  because we know it's something you may want to   be involved in or we want your guidance on. So  uh this would be two very specific changes. Uh   I would absolutely say we need to do the rightway  and easement piece that helps us streamline some   things and wanted to put on the table the option  to increase the the the dollar amount at the same   time if you would if you so choose. So that's  it. pretty straightforward. Uh, glad to answer   any questions. Sean has looked at this as well.  So, any questions come back? I'm getting some  

nods on this side. And I see a question from  Alderman Pototts. All right. Thank you, sir. Uh,   Eric, just for everybody's public awareness, uh, I  believe within the past four years, give or take,   that we actually voted to make that last increase.  Is that accurate? And we moved it from what to   what? I think 2022 was the last update of this. Uh  and I I know we had moved from 25,000 to 50,000.   Um I believe it was in 2022, but there are times  we have updated and restated this. So it it was   uh at a minimum that that far back. Uh and I think  the amount before that had been 25,000. So one of   the things we look at is what comes through and  you know how many items. We're trying to make   sure we streamline your process, but also want the  accountability. That's why we report it. And uh   again, we we bring things to you that we know may  be of interest uh even when it's within authority,   too. All right. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor, I  think um inherently this warrants, you know,   some discussion, not not because we don't trust  you, but just simply because you may not always   be the city administrator or, you know, you  always this is just prudent. No, absolutely.   I'd like to know like what, you know, if we're  what the threshold or how how many uh that we   saw over the 50 that would have been within the  50 to 75 to get to get an idea of like, you know,   is this what what are we what has caused the  problem that is and not saying that there was a   problem, but like what are we what would have been  avoided? So, how many items are we talking about?   like over the last year like just kind of curious  um again we we raised it by 25,000 it was 25 to   50. Mhm. I'd be willing to even go higher on some  specifically for just the easement purchases. So,  

um, if we would delineate between specifically  for those, cuz I know those can be numerous and   a lot of them possibly under 100,000, let's say,  for the easements, uh, for capital projects if   that would make things easier. I think that that  kind of thing. The other thing I've just I have no   reason to be concerned other than uh but you know  we want to make sure that things are progress but   like how many $49,000 contracts we or for you know  and I know that there's some reasonable reasons   why we you probably target for under 50 so it can  be a streamlined process but um multiple you know,   invoices or different contracts that you all have  to keep something under 50. Um, yeah, if this   would alleviate some of even that kind of behind  the scenes stuff that, you know, is probably   reasonable. Um, but, you know, I guess just  more justification at the end of the day is what   establishing the issue. I have no problem with it.  Um, but I think maybe just a little more than just   like um, you know, kind of I guess why 75 why not  100? Yeah, it was it was an exological increment   and and we're glad to provide more background  for that for you as well. Uh, on easements, uh,   one of the things that might help with that too  is, you know, it's only on your approved projects.   We're not doing anything outside of what's already  been approved. Um, so that may be something and   it's not like we negotiate them. It's not like  we negotiate them. So I don't even know. I mean,   and when we bring projects before you, a lot of  times you'll see that language that already has   given Eric the authority to do it and me the  authorization to condemn if needed and that   doesn't put a number on it. What we've said in  those is if if it's a project and an easement or  

rideway is needed, Eric already has the authority.  And those can be massively big. This is the   oneoffs where it might not be necessarily like on  your radar. And for example, the one that kind of   brought this to our attention this time was in  hard bargain. It's hard bargain, right? That   um they they're asking for a um transit stop, but  in order to do that, we have to take a little bit   of property, but you guys own all the property  and only really you can decide what happens to it   unless you give the city administrator authority.  And that one isn't part of like a an actual major   CIP project. So we it just makes sense that we  could just do it. Yeah. The big that's a good   point. The big projects you sort of provide that  authority as we're doing it on the front end. Um   yeah and and there was a kind of a technicality  regardless of dollar amount that we need to clean   up on those that give us some flexibility. So,  um, we could just do that piece and look give   you a little more detail on the on the on the  dollar amounts. We'd have to look at how giving   you the the the specifics that you're looking  for. I'm not I don't have I don't know that off   the top of my head. One thing to just make sure  you know too, this is a cumulative amount. So, we   don't do a series of contracts that are under 50  and and chain them together. They're cumulative.   So once we hit that 50,000, we come to you. All  right. Even though I might have done a previous   authorization, we don't layer another one on that  goes under that dollar amount. It is cumulative.   That's good enough. Thank you. That's an important  accountability. Very important. Thank you, Alvin   Burgerer. I I'm with Patrick on that. Why don't  we look at maybe can you put the stipulation in   there if it's easements that we give you up to the  authority of 100,000 for easements? Um, and just  

add that layer in there. So that and then if you  want to stay at 75 and we think 75 is reasonable,   uh, maybe some of us think that $100,000 is  reasonable. I don't know. I have to see what   the other board members think. But I think we  ought to put something in there to at least give   you $100,000 on the easements cuz you say these  are projects we've already approved and you know,   we need to move forward. We don't need to be  waiting a week or two or three or four to come   back to the board. And as Shauna pointed on bigger  projects, you've already pretty much granted that.   So that's not an issue there. It's these other  kind of So I'd be with that. Everybody good? Yep.   We'll provide some additional followup. Thanks.  We'll go to item six, which is ordinance 2025-54,   an ordinance to reszone 22.60 60 acres to revise  the hillside Hillrest overlay district boundaries   for the property located south of Macatcher  Memorial Parkway east of Franklin Road at 354   Franklin Road establishing a public hearing on May  the 12th. I do have a public speaker. Go ahead,   Joey. And then we'll ask Drake Reer if he wants  to say anything after that. All right. Thank you.   Uh this is a resoning request specific to the his  Hillrest hillside uh overlay district uh for the   property that you see on the screen there. It's a  very large parcel that touches both Franklin Road   uh and Machatcher Parkway. Um so this is to match  the conservation line that was um amended uh back   this past September. Um the conservation  line is is associated with the conservation   um design concept in Envision Franklin. Um,  so it's really more of a recommendation tool,   but the actual HHO line is what protects the  property. Um, so the applicant is requesting to   uh revise the HHO line to match the uh  conservation line as you see on the screen   there. It's the darker green on the screen  on the map there that follows along. Um,  

and that does give more buffer and protection to  the residential lots uh on Ash Drive. There is no   um change to the base zoning district at  this time. time. There is no development   associated with this request. This is purely  changing or altering the U hillside Hillrest   overlay to match the conservation line. So staff  recommends approval as did planning commission. Hello, Mayor Ford. Thank you for your time. My  name is Drake Reer. I'm a landscape architect and   land planner at Gamble Design Collaborative here  on behalf of uh Cumberland and Western Resources   who's the owner of the property. Joey spoke to  most of the things, but there was a couple things   I wanted to to clarify and just talk through the  process. A lot of y'all are aware of this ongoing   process. The Envision Franklin um amendment kept  the rural reserve, changed the conservation.   That line was a collaborative effort with staff,  multiple on-site meetings with current planning,   the long range planning, historic. Um, so it has  been a uh a long process, but one where we were   dodging ticks and driving across the site to  try to figure out where this where this line   uh makes sense and better conforms to the zoning  ordinance. um we see this as a um as a way to   um refine the line to better align with the  zoning ordinance and based on that September   2025 Envision Franklin update as well. So happy  to answer any questions you may have on that. Seeing none, we'll keep moving. Well, I'm  sorry, Alman Pots, I did have a question   and this was specific to and I Uh, I have  this map pulled up on my computer, but it  

was actually a different map that I I had more  concern with, and it was specific to where the   um, Macatcher and I believe it's at Moors Lane,  no, Cool Springs Boulevard, dead end right there.   And the concern that I have is uh and I think  it's labeled as uh update two. Um and I'm sorry   I'm speaking to this but the change in allowing  or making this modification. The concern that   I have is by making this modification, it would  allow for some type of structure or building or   uh commercial business to be built right there at  the base of this hillside overlay as it dead ends   from Cool Springs Boulevard in a Mac Hatcher.  And it would be really tight in that area. And   I just want to ask as you represent uh the the  developer for the proposed development. Um is   that the plan or is there any discussion for that  right now? Well, I I just want to clarify it will   remain a state residential. That is the zoning.  We're not asking for that. So the zoning is a   state residential. The Envision Franklin did not  change as rural rural reserve. My apologies. Both   of those do not allow commercial. So, as of now,  our plan is to work through the HHO. We don't have   a plan in mind. We want to make sure we know what  we're drawing to. And that's been our concern the   whole time is we want to make sure that the  HHO makes sense based on Envision Franklin.   We know our boundaries and then bring before you  a plan. But there's no intention right now. We   don't there's no intention for commercial. It is  staying state residential and then rural reserve   at this time. So anything any other changes  would have to come before this board and more  

so vision Franklin before planning commission  before that could be changed in any way. That   line specifically follows the steep slopes as  you come into there. So we walked on staff.   We walked out with staff and as we drove through  there you really notice how those 14% or greater   slopes tend to pick up. So that line was based  on the existing tree canopy kind of where it's   hidden from Mac Hatcher and then where that 14%  slopes start as you go up the go up the hill. I've   been on site as well. So and that max is a two  and a half stories for rural reserve and for uh   estate residential for the existing policies  that are on site and those are residential   policies. Okay. Thank you. Hold on, Peters. I  was just going to say maybe we could also see   uh right after the map the next thing there  shows resoning lines. Uh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. And Peterson that was the map I was actually  trying to make reference to as well. Okay. Let me Are you through there? Alman Peterson, you  have Yes. I just wanted to Okay, pull that up,   Vice Mayor. And then I'll get Alderman Brown.  So, when did we see this last? Um, do we we we   joint conceptual? Do you recall joint conceptual?  Uh, it would have only been a joint conceptual,   I think. So, and we'll have to look at attendance  for that meeting at Bulma, but um I would I would   say that we probably didn't have a lot of  because of the nature of those meetings,   we it's just a lot of discussion that happens  between planning commission envision Franklin as  

a planning commission document and so they have um  have have changed this and zoning ordinances are   is a is a board man document and they work  collaboratively collaboratively together.   I'd say I think what I'm my only concern I have  no problem with that line. I think what I'm I'm   continually I think we've we've seen this piece  of property come the last three or four years   with various ideas and and have heard on the back,  you know, background different ideas and it and it   just is beginning to feel like something's going  on with this and we don't know what we're we're   we're asking to be change this which is an odd  request by the way by itself. I mean, just to be   it's it's abnormal. Um, usually this would happen  with the the master zoning ordinance update. Uh,   I'm not sure why that wasn't done before um in  this January 1st update. Probably because Envision   Franklin wasn't updated by then. So, I guess I  just it leaves me with more questions. Again,   I have no problem with this, but the only thing  is it changes it to base zoning. So you know we   changed this and then you know by right zoning um  you know things can can happen and and that's fine   but we didn't really get a we didn't get a vote in  that envision Franklin change nor did we discuss   it together other than that joint conceptual and  there just a lot that's happening there's a lot   of potential with this property positive for the  community and and we just continue to get kind of   like little pieces of changes. And I think maybe  the point of this is I'm more curious about what   the intent of the property owner is for this. I  think there's a lot of great intent and I think   you've got a board that's willing to work with  the property on this on whatever the intent is,  

but we're kind of getting peacemeal and and I  don't know at some point that cause more questions   like are we doing something that we might not  want to to happen if in the future we don't know   what's going to we don't know what's happening. It  continues to be there's no real plan for this yet.   We have gone through an envision Franklin change.  We've gone through a zoning ordinance request. So   there's clearly something and that's okay. I  want the the property owner to work with the   city on on something um that is like tangible.  Um Village Green was out there at one point. I   was not opposed to that. Um but there's you know  so anyway that those are my comments. I I have no   problem with this but can I clarify on on that?  Is that okay to respond to that? Go ahead. Um,   we did bring forth a plan last time. I think a lot  of what happened is that the plan was discussed,   which as board of alderman does, that's that's  y'all's purview and trying to make sure that   what's on this site is something you want.  What I think gets lost is the HHO. And so,   we wanted to pull them apart because there is a  merit to changing this HHO to better align with   the zoning ordinance regardless of whatever plans  on here. The zoning ordinance has three criteria   for why an HHO is established. Viewshed analysis,  steep slopes, um, contour lines. This site, it's   a, it's a GIS document. Staff can't go to every  site. Our client paid for a detailed analysis,   not knowing what was going to happen. Detail  analysis, multiple on-site surveys. These lines   that you see are not arbitrary to a design. They  are related to certain items on the property.   The straight line that comes through is a tree  line that staff says, "This is the area we can   see. We don't want anything to go past that."  So, we drew a line there. We surveyed this line,   too. This is not an approximation. This is a  surveyed line. The straight line along the bottom   that goes along Ash Drive, that's an historic  wall that was there that we we put the survey  

points along that wall. We drew that wall based  on recommendations from staff, brought that area   into conservation, would bring that area into  HHO where it currently is now. That area along   uh Mac Hatcher is based on tree canopy and also  along steep slopes. So we don't have a plan. We   don't know if anything will fit there. We're not  sure. We don't want to draw a plan until we know   what the new HHO line. And we feel like this HHO  line has a merit to be changed based on how the   zoning ordinance has written the determination of  that that boundaries. Thank you. That's good. And   this is recommended by staff as well from that  kind of objective review not related to but more   aligning with this the the standards. Yeah. I got  Alderman Brown next and then Alderman Burgerer   and then Alman Peterson. Yep. Yes, sir. Um I'll  I'll be a little bit more direct in my comments   but consistent. Um with what I've said before. Um  I I don't have an issue with the the lines. Um,   I understand why we would change those,  but I will say anything that would land,   any structure that would land in that area there  off of Cool Springs is a non-starter for me. Um,   and I I'll say this, we've just we have in the  last two years invested so much money in this   area. We have bought land. We have fought for land  here. We have um worked to get to Roper's Knob.   We have I mean, there's so much effort. We've  protected this gateway. This this is just too   important of an area right here. I feel like we're  just I mean scrappily fighting to save this area.   And I've said not only have I said any structure  on this entrance way here at Cool Springs and and   um and Mac Hatcher's non-starter, but I've  consistently said whatever's going to go in   there off of Franklin Road had better be pretty  spectacular and pretty light um given all that  

we're doing there. And I still would love to see,  quite frankly, I would love to see the owner of   that property recognize what the city is trying to  do to save that gateway and participate in that.   Um, there's plenty of other places to do things. I  I would love to see something better happen there,   quite frankly. Um, so I don't really have an issue  with the lines. I just would love to there just   needs to be recognition that it's going to be  a really hard road to hoe at least here in this   ward with that area to do anything too heavy and  certainly anything off of that macatrical springs. See you at Alderman Burgers next. Yeah, I was just  going to say I don't think you can plan until you   know what you've got, right? I think that was  smart. I mean, I don't have a problem with these   lines. I think you should do this. I I And then  you'll know exactly what you have and what you   can work with, but with all them brown, too. It's  really important what goes there. And I don't I I   I think uh you know, something better needs to  happen there. We don't have anything right now.   We don't know. And but I think your comment  is saying whatever goes there better be good   and stellar. and and and I think your group from  the history of your group that's working with us,   this is what you give us each time. I mean, you  hear us and I think uh I'm not really worried   about it. I think you'll bring something pretty  stellar that fits that area. And like you said,   um, Alderman Brown, that off of, uh,  Franklin Pike, Franklin Road there,   you have to be careful how this seems coming into  the gateway because we've done all this work and   we've bought this property next to it and all  this. So, think what happens as you come down   Franklin Road is going to be really important  as you plan. And I would just say, you know,   as you all go back to the drawing board and  look at this. I mean, I'm going to sport this.  

I don't see why why you shouldn't do this,  but um I think we're all just saying and make   sure that what you do bring us in the future is  that you're hearing us and and I think asking,   you know, upfront and talking to people on this  board and and especially um the alderman that   represents this area is really important. Okay.  Alderman Peterson. Uh ju just to say something   specifically. If you're looking on this uh down  toward the bottom and on the left side, you know,   there's this orange line uh there that that uh  changed some things. And um it it's it's the   proposed HH line. But the other thing is, if  you notice, there's some little pieces there   that come off of really Ash Drive, which is  the which is the street right down below it,   you know, and so the people that live on Ash Drive  want to see nothing right next to them. And so,   uh, re redrawing that HHO line there really,  uh, will protect the people that live on on   Ash on Ash Lane and they, they really, they want  to be protected and they really appreciate it. All of Caesar, good comments, good discussion here, I guess,  for me. And I think Drake, you almost got there.   the the blue line, the heavy blue line is a line  that is drawn currently utilizing GIS or analysis   without physically being on the property. Right?  So, it's less about us actually going and moving a   line that is set in stone and is perfect and it's  more about us potentially considering perfecting  

that line with boots on the ground, eyes on the  ground to see the the way the land really looks   when you're standing on the land. Is that fair  for us to say staff support that as well? I have   less concerns about us correcting this line to  reflect what actually is there on the ground.   I do share some of the some of the comments that  others have made about making sure that that we   don't build a skyscraper at Cool Springs and uh  and Mac Hatcher, but that we get a plan and start   working towards bringing that plan together  to activate that corner of our community. Um   in a way that's intentional, not not quickly, but  intentional and and and that ex that appreciates   Roper Knob. I've heard so much about Roper Knob.  How many of the folks in this room have ever   been to Rover's Knob or ever actually physically  walked on it? Right. And and we're the minority,   right? Um but it would be exceptional now that  we own land kind of in this area to see it come   together so that just the people in this room  aren't the ones visiting Roper Knob. Thank you,   mayor. All right, we need to move along because  we got another item that's going to take a little   time. Thank you. Thank you. Uh item seven is uh  resolution 2026-12. Resolution amending the middle   8 PUB subdivision to extend the vesting rights  for the property located east of Franklin Road   south of Liberty Pike located at 2090 Liberty  Pike. Established public hearing May the 12th,   2026. Any questions about that? Oh, go  ahead, Joey. I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. So,   this is a request to extend the vesting period  for middle 8 PD subdivision for a further 3 years   um to allow the applicant to secure any necessary  permits and cons commence site preparation. Uh   just as a reminder, uh this plan was approved by  the board man in August of 2023. It includes 275   residential units in a variety of housing types,  uh which equates to 38.191 units per acre and  

3,000 square ft of non-residential space uh for  a site that is comprised of 7.2 acres. There is   one modification standard that was approved for  uh to modify the minimum parking standards. Um,   a site plan for the property has been approved,  but they have not yet pulled any permits or have   not prepared the site any for any grading or  anything. Um, so in general, the um plan that   was approved still uh complies with the current  ordinance. Um, but any if this were to expire,   a new plan would have to be brought forth and that  would include um new agreements uh with parkland   as well as new reviews from planning commission  and historic zoning commission. Um so we are   recommending approval should uh the board man  alderman determine the continuation of vested   rights is in the best interest of the community  and planning commission did so as well. Thank you. Item eight is uh knowledge of progress  report on resolution 2025-44 resolution   adopting a plan of services for the annexation  of 1288 Lewisburg Pike by the city of Franklin,   Tennessee, established public  hearing for May the 12th, 2026. Um I'll keep this brief. Uh this is a  state required progress report uh for   any plan of services that's part of an  annexation. This is 1288 Lewisburg Pike,   the Gateway Church campus. Um, and to  cut right to it, we're we're fine. Um,   we write them to where uh the it's really the  developer and the property owner, they have to   um get the utilities to the site, work with the  city on that. They are currently working with the   city to extend sanitary sewer. Otherwise, we  have met all the other um points of the plan   of services. And thank you, Joey. Number nine is  sanitation environmental services cost of service   presentation. So this is an element of our our  budget preparation that we wanted to share with  

you and get some feedback as we're working to  get the a proposed recommended budget to you   uh by early May. Uh this is an update on where  we are with our our uh rates for our sanitation,   curbside trash, and recycling services. Uh a  very very valuable service as we all know. We've   especially seen that in the last several weeks. Uh  but um what I think you'll see is a 5-year outlook   that is largely uh inflationary in nature,  which is significant given that we have seen   uh significant increases in uh the tip fees  that we experience at the landfill. So we've   been able to integrate that into a plan uh that  uh and and with some options for you to give us   some feedback on tonight. So, our office of budget  and performance and our sanitation environmental   services group will be providing that to you  uh here soon in just a second. I'm so sorry. Just in case. Oh, did okay. So, it's likely will be passed by the 20th.  So, they'll be back. Okay, good. Thank you. All right, looks like we've got there. Good  evening, board of mayor and alderman. Uh, my name   is Skyhart. I currently serve as your management  fellow for the city of Franklin. Um, and I'm   joined tonight by Mark and Nate um to bring you  some updates on our um SCEs cost of service study   that you first saw in 2024. Um, so that was a  little bit ago for so a little overview first.   Um uh in 2024, Bulma passed new sanitation rates  that took effect in January of 2025 and January   of 2026. These rates allowed the sanitation fund  to become self- sustaining and no longer require   supplemental transfers from the general fund  each year. Um so now staff have revisited this  

uh cost of service study to evaluate the necessary  rates to keep the fund self-sustaining past FY26.   Um, expenditures are expected to increase in  FY2027 due to increases in MSW disposal contracts   that Nate will touch on shortly. Um, so revisiting  these rates now is helping to ensure that the fund   uh remains self- sustaining despite these  changes. And we'll dig a little bit deeper   into what this means for our residential rates  and our commercial tipping fees. Um, but first   I'm going to turn it over to Nate Ridley to give  you a little bit of an internal department update. All right. Good evening everyone. Um just to give  you a little history um and give you some of our   accomplishments for FY 2025. Uh we've collected  over 2.2 million um stops or collection points.   We're looking at over 74,000 transferred tons  to MSW to the landfill. We're also looking at   over 2,800 tons of residential recycling to  Marshall County, one of our former vendors.   And then total tons of yard waste, not brush,  but just regular yard waste and over 14 tons. And   then we've delivered over 400 uh new MSW or trash  containers. And then we've also delivered over 500   um containers for recycling bins. Uh we've also  successfully um implemented the glass repo uh   glass recycling program and the cardboard drop off  site. So, we have a site at um 417 Century Court   and then we have sites that are located all over  the city of Franklin that they're they're catching   on pretty good. So, we're doing pretty good with  that. The stats Nate shared with us just recently,   uh we saw 19 ton what was it 19 tons of cardboard  drop off so far this year and a little over four   tons of glass uh so far this year. So, they've  been well received and that momentum is building  

to give people an outlet for glass and then for  larger quantities of cardboard and and that glass   number does not include the 30 yard container  that we have. We haven't got it serviced yet. So,   we're looking to get that serviced pretty soon,  but we're doing pretty good with that and those   are revenue generating for us as well. Okay.  All right. Just to give you a little history of   how we got here. Um, just looking at the bycount  contract. Um, in regards to the bycounty contract,   it will be increasing from our current rate  of $20.23 to $29.50 for the second term of   the agreement that will be effective July 1,  2026. Um, this is an important detail that we   want you guys to consider. Um, also on our  landfill contract front, we're in the best   possible scenario. Our contract is set to expire  June 30th, 2032, which gives us six more years   under the current terms. And then we're also  looking at an option with an option to extend   for an additional 5 years. So you're looking at  um this provides us the best solid foundation   for a long-term planning where we're in the best  possible spot with our landfilling. Number two,   regarding um our recycling contract with  Marshall County, it expired November 2025.   Um we're currently we went through a bid process.  We have a vendor that we with waste management   that we're working with. We're under um contract  with them almost. Um one thing I want you to note   in this our contract with Marshall County was  $45 a ton. Um if we had to renew with them,   they were asking $65 a ton. In this what we're  looking at is with Marsh with Waste Management,   we're looking at 433 uh $4369 a ton. So currently  right now we're on a month-to-month contract with   Waste Management until we get the final deal done  with them. Um we're paying $50 a ton. Um thirdly  

on this, what I want you to look at is the MBI  contract. It is working very well for us. This   couldn't get any better for us. So certainly we  are paying um we're we're currently paying 28   um72 per ton for our hauling with the additional  compaction rate of $111. Um and that's very good.   One more thing we want to do before I turn  it back over is our landfill rates. Right   now we're looking at the Cedarfield landfill  rate which is MS which which is which is CND at   $17 a ton. We're looking at Waste Connections  landfill rates at $421 and 21 cents a ton. And   then waste management in Camden, we're looking at  $34.99. So our landfill rates are pretty good and   our hauling rates are pretty good. So we're  still within competitive um with the region. All right. Uh we'll now move into some of our  suggested changes for the upcoming years. Um,   so first taking a look at our commercial  tipping fees. Um, for context, rates on   commercial tipping fees have typically raised  $5 every 2 years. Um, but this proposed new   increase structure you see on the right would  raise the rates $5 next year to $70 a ton. Um,   and then $2.50 each year after that through 2031.  Um, so these rates allow us to remain competitive   with um the transfer stations in the area while  maximizing our revenue streams that are outside   of just increases to residential rates. So, we  want to make sure that we're looking at both both   of those avenues equally. Um, the proposed changes  here result in $2.8 million in additional revenues   um in the next year, 5 years. Um, also  before we move on from this slide,   I just want to note that everything you'll see  moving forward does have this potential um,   increases for commercial tipping fees baked into  it. Um, so moving forward, we'll be talking about  

residential rates with um, these commercial rates  you see here baked in. So this slide shows um,   a detailed revenue breakdown since 2023 and then  uh, out to projected 2031. um again with those   propos proposed commercial rates but residential  rates staying at our current uh rate of $33 per   month. So the only growth you're going to see in  that green column for residential revenues is any   um increase in the customer base. Um that's  just estimated based off of our typical annual   customer growth. Um and so you'll see something  to highlight here. Um that increase in residential   revenue that we saw between 2024 and 2025 when  the first rate increase went into account.   um and then more gradual increases um  that we're expecting moving forward. And then looking at the other  side of the coin, expenditures,   um you'll see again 2023 to projected 2031 here.  Um in personnel, you're going to see gradual   um growth for inflation at 5% for salaries, um  and 7 and a half for benefits. And then on the   operations side, you're going to see um those  inflationary increases as well as the specific   contract changes that Nate just mentioned um  that are baked into these amounts. Um so those   have been accounted for specifically. And then  in the capital column, everything up to 2027   um is what we have spent in the fund. And then  the projected 27 to 2031 capital numbers come   um in working with our fleet manager Kim Hammond  um on replacement structures um for all of the   fleet within SCES. So you're seeing a range of  amount from 1.37 million to about 1.6 million in   2031 um to keep replacing all of our equipment  as they reach their life cycle um end in SCES. So then we put those last two slides together  and you can see the outcome of the fund here  

um were residential rates to stay at that $33  a month. Um so you can see the general fund   transfers that we had in 2023 and 2024 and then  those drop off in 2025 um following the rate   increases um and then hopefully remaining um off  in 2027. But you'll see a deficit start to creep   in. And so about half a million dollar deficit in  2027 there. So with that background information,   we're going to move into um five potential  options for residential rates. Again, um   all of these residential rates are do have those  commercial tipping fees baked in with them. Um so,   and this is by no means all of the combinations  that are possible in the fund. Um so we'd love   to hear from y'all on different combinations  or things you you would like to look into.   First, option one shows what you saw on that  summary slide again. So, no residential changes.   The residential rate stays at $33 per month,  and you're seeing um general fund transfers   needed in 2027 beginning at that $520,000 number  um and then creeping up as you get towards 2031. Option two looks at um minimizing the transfers  needed by increasing the residential rate $1.50   per year moving forward. Um, this option, going  back to that capital conversation we just had,   includes the full equipment replacement  rates varying from about 1.4 million in 2027,   um, up to that 1.6 million in 2031. Um,   so you can see here that the general fund  transfers needed don't completely go away,   but they are minimized in this option. Um,  and you're ending at about $40.50 in 2031. In option three, you're also seeing that same  rate structure of a $1.50 per year increase,   but we've put in a little bit  of a caveat on the capital. Um,   so this showcases a $1 million capital  equipment cap. Um, and we've kind of worked  

with Nate and and Mark and Kim and making sure  that that would be feasible um for our fleet,   knowing that it would slightly increase the  age um of the fleet. Um, but they feel that   is feasible. And so I'll kind of turn to them if  they want to make any comments on that aspect. Um, actually with with half of this cap, it it'll  let you know what you're going to be spending   each year. We know we're going to be spending  a million dollars each year, not to go over a   million dollars each year. And it's actually going  to streamline what we're going to be asking for.   We're just going to be looking at the equipment  that actually needs to be replaced. And we've   been doing a pretty good job of taking care of our  equipment and extending the life of the equipment.   This is just a little bit more to streamline what  we're doing and then actually to help us keep the   rates down. But, um, having a million dollar cap  is is very good for us moving forward, I believe. So, similar to option two, you see, um,  the ending rate in 2031 here as $40.50. Options four and five um, move away from that  $1.50 50 c increment and into just the full dollar   amounts necessary um to get as close to break  even as possible. So historically we have kept   uh sanitation rates at those even dollar amounts.  Um so that just showcases here what that would   look like. Um so it's not a consistent amount each  year, not a dollar every year or $2 every year,   but varies based on um what is needed um in  expenditures and revenues. So you'll see um   we're breaking even or having a surplus in  every year except 2029. and there's just a   $7,000 deficit there. Um, in this uh option,  the rates in 2031 would end at $41 a month. Um,   and then of course this option also includes that  full equipment cost breakdown of the 1.3 to 1.6   million per year. And then I think you can see  the trend here. This is that full dollar increase  

option with the $1 million capital cap that we  were discussing discussing in option three. Um, so   this allows us to break even in um, all years um,  and includes that $1 million cap. Ending rates in   2031 sitting at $40 per month. Um, a little caveat  I wanted to note here. You might be wondering,   well, 2031 um, a 30 $322,000 surplus. Why can't we  make the rate um, just $39 and still break even?   Um, so the opportunity cost of $1 of sanitation  rates is a little bit over $350,000 a year. Um,   so if you were to lower that number down to $39  a month, um, you'd probably be sitting at about   a 50 25 to $50,000 deficit in the fund that year.  Um, so that's just something to keep in mind as   we move into discussion. Um, with that, we would  note that city staff recommends that the Bulma   move forward with um, exploring an increase in  sanitation rates via option five in 2027. Um,   I'll turn to Mark and Eric to talk a little bit  more about their thoughts um, moving forward and   we can move into discussion. I think uh, Sky  and Nate did a really good job of laying this   out for you where we are. These are largely  inflationary. It's how you want to lay it out   over time. Uh option five is the recommendation I  would I would offer to as your city administrator.   Uh we did some we've been doing some budget work  as you might imagine getting ready to to get you a   budget in early May. And uh if we don't take these  actions we are putting more strain on an already   pretty tight general fund. And so especially  as you look three and four and five years out   uh I would strongly recommend that we look at  doing this is this is the cost of doing business.   We we've made the hard decisions to get this to  a point where it's truly a self-supporting fund   and we want to continue that so that that those  those rates reflect the cost of delivering the  

service and um and doesn't put additional strain  on your general fund which which has it competing   for dollars for public safety and parks and other  services that we we really value and want to make   sure we have capacity to support in the general  fund. It it's got to come from somewhere. Uh we've   made the policy decision over a lot of years to  really make this a uh a self-sufficient fund. Uh   when I when I came on board many years ago now,  uh we were subsidizing this to the tune of almost   $4.5 million a year of general fund dollars. So  we've now worked it to the point that it it is   paying its way and I want to see us continue  to do that. Um that's consistent with what   the board's direction has been over those many  years. So, um, glad to answer questions. Mark,   anything you want to add? All right. So, glad to  answer any other questions you have. And as Sky   said, there are other variations we can do, but  this gives you a good sense of what it takes to   meet the obligations and and keep the the fund  whole. Uh, I will echo what Nate said. We've   done a little bit of digging and looking at this  and feel that that million dollar cap is a pretty   reasonable number to work from and and sets a sets  a mark for the the team to to know what they have   but also live within those means and helps us keep  those rates uh from from going higher. So that's   where we are. And just a clarifying question that  might come up um all of these options do build in   um effective rates of January 1st which is where  um sanitation rates currently um operate under.   And clearly a dollar to $2 is in that inflationary  range, especially when you look at what we're   seeing on the tip fee. I I I applaud the the team  for keeping those costs in good control. I might   add a little more color to what Eric just said  that in 2007, every single dollar of the property   tax went to subsidize solid waste. My recollection  was around 5 million. And uh for us to be now  

we've worked really hard to get this where we're  not taking general fund money and subsidizing it.   And I applaud all the actions of the board, this  board, past boards for finally getting to this   point where we can uh make it operate like a an  enterprise fund. So kudos to staff and I love   five. They also do such a good job. You know, you  never hear anybody complaining about getting their   garbage picked up. Alman Pototts, then I've got  Vice Mayor, and then Alderman Brown. Thank you,   sir. I do have a question. As we're looking at  all the different options here, um I I'm looking   like a a 1:2 ratio as far as what residential  is playing versus what commercial is paying.   I I'm just thinking about and I I need you  as the subject matter experts to just weigh   in on this and how do we get um you know roughly  double the amount for commercial compared to what   residential is paying and uh if we could just  start with that. I'm I'm very interested. Right   now at at uh Williamson County um for MSW they're  charging $75 a ton. Um for CN D they're charging   $40 a ton and then yard waste is $40 a ton. So the  the the services are fundamentally different. The   commercial fee is coming through our transfer  station going across the scale and then we   through our hauler take it up to the landfill. The  residential service is the the the trucks that go   through the neighborhoods and do the individual  curbside service. So they're kind of different   animals there and we are trying to maximize what  we think the market will bear on the commercial   side. So we try to be about as aggressive as we  can be. It is it is a convenient service for those  

folks. Uh and so we see that it's valuable. It's  a little bit of trying to gauge the elasticity of   that of that rate. So, we're trying to put as much  on the bone as we can or get as much off the bone,   however we want to say that, uh, to make sure  that we're trying to to to lessen the impact   on our on our residents by getting maximizing  what we get from the commercial. And that's   where my question there lies is how does how  do we compare to other municipalities uh,   here within Williamson County and or like similar  size uh, municipalities within the state? Right   now, we're we're very just for commercial. Yeah,  just for commercial, we're very competitive. Um,   I gave you some of the landfill rates that we had.  They're similar to transfer station rates. Also,   um, with, like I said before, with Whimsy County,  you're looking at $75 a ton for MSW. And then when   I say CND, it's construction and demolition uh,  debris that you're bringing in. And then the yard   waste is 40. So, like we said, we're trying to  get a good even balance to where we're keeping our   customers and they'll still keep coming back to  us. We're not pricing ourselves out of the market   which will make everything lopsided because with  our transfer station supplementing our residents   we want to kind of keep a good balance of that  but also keep our customers and then make it a   gradual increase just to you know what I'm saying  stay within inflation within the market. I I would   just challenge us to really look at the growth of  commercial that that's occurring along 65 from uh   the north part of our municipal border all the way  to the south and trying to increase those funds as   much as possible before you hit that tipping point  because I really do think that more of this burden   should be carried on the commercial piece than  rather on the residential. We we hear you. We are   in the same mindset. We try to maximize it. Nate  will tell you the first question that Mark and I   ask is can it go up? Can we can we push it more  sooner, quicker, and we're trying to gauge what  

what the market will bear. We're fairly unique uh  in that we have this transfer station. There's not   a lot of other options. So, we want to maximize  that and it's fairly convenient for a lot of these   these haulers. So, we we recognize that we have a  a good product, if you will, a good service that's   available on the on the commercial side, too.  Um, but you know, most of our other neighboring   municipalities aren't in this business. If I can,  if I can add to what you're saying, hand that off   to the private side and those rates go where they  go and the services are not nearly as extensive.   Actually, the the surrounding counties, the  surrounding areas are coming to Franklin to   see how we do it because nobody else can do it  like we do it. So, they're coming to us and say,   "How do y'all do this?" So, it's kind of hard to  compare, but you have people coming in and say,   "We like what you guys are doing." Um, within the  past two years, we've had several different people   from McMinnville, from um, Kingsport, from East  and West Tennessee coming to us to say, "How do   you do this? What do we need to do?" Um, and in  constant contact with different municipalities of   how we do our business here. So, we're top of the  line. A lot of people call us outside of Franklin,   they call it the Cadillac service. So, this  is what, you know, I'm saying, we we have a   very good service here and we are in a unique. We  have a transfer station. we are able to we have   a recycling program. We're able to pick up our  own garbage and not be able to we don't have to   uh contract it out. So, we're in a good spot. Um  but we we could definitely look at the market and   and make sure we stay within the market and stay  competitive. Also, sir, so I I'll end with this.   I know we're in a great spot, but I'm going  to challenge us even harder because right now   if we've got, you know, call it 75,000 people uh  passing through Franklin and using our commercial   businesses that uh that that that's an opportunity  right there over the over the coming years. Yes,   sir. I think I the vice mayor next and then I'll  ground. This looks like mostly driven by capital  

like capital needs like the the changes.  I mean, not mostly. Maybe the rates. Well,   we got pretty good locked in rates though  on our on our landfill. So, really Well,   they just went up pretty significantly. That's  part of They were planned by contract. It wasn't   not um we would we they I think they're a little  higher than we expected when we did this for   you a couple years ago. I thought they were  locked in. Uh they were for that time period,   but then they can go up at this stage, right? They  may want to cuz I thought we locked them in for   X number of years. Well, we had locked it in, but  they increased with inflation using the CPI chart,   CPI index. This number was outside, but this  number was outside of the index. And this is   the second term of the contract. And that in that  it increases to that number. Okay. It says in the   contract, it says equal to or whatever the gate  rate is. And the gate rate is higher than what   the actual number is in the contract. So, so this  new number does go past a standard inflationary   calculation. We had that in the previous term and  now they get a chance to sort of ratchet it up   essentially to their broader rate. We had a kind  of a preferred uh rate going before this. The rate   we had with by county u a handful of years ago was  ridiculously low. Um and they couldn't maintain   operations that way. That's how we ended into  these contract negotiations to begin with. Ramp   up to what kind of the market would bear what they  can actually operate under. Um, and that's kind of   where we that's second terms. We did sort of work  that rate in exchange for years of capacity out.   That's what Nate referred to. You've got you got  11 years. You got another 11 years of capacity,   which quite frankly in this business, capacity and  rate are equally important. We want to manage rate   as best we can, but securing capacity over the  long haul is really really important. So trying  

to understand like what's driving I mean the rate  the the disposal rate our contracts is a big deal   part of that but the capital is what I was in the  slide what um number seven and replacement because   we're capping some capital yes what have we been  spending on capital for this department regularly   is a million dollars more than normal or is that  less than normal we're usually in the in the range   of either 1.4 four or 1.7 million sometimes. I I  believe one time it was close to 2 million because   those are expensive trucks. It is. Yes, sir.  Yeah, it it's been a it's been fairly inconsistent   and and before we got to where we were more  self-sufficient, that was one of the big things   is to level out that capital investment, have that  be more consistent. uh the the swing in whether we   met costs and revenues or whether we needed a  general fund subsidy largely was driven by how   much capital we were so I guess that's where I'm  trying when I look at these options I'm trying to   determine if a $1 million cap is like a good thing  or a bad I mean that's going to set us back on   capital or That's a good question. I think it's  probably sounds like it's going to set us back.   Actually, when you look at it, we we've gotten to  a point with our capital where we're good with our   fleet and management. Um, there was some some good  years. You guys were very good to us and we got   everything that we needed. Our oldest vehicle is  our 2029 side loader that's actually on the road.   So, 2019. What? What? 2019. Yeah, 20 2019. My bad.  I got so many. Yeah, I'm running. So, that will be   true at some point. Yes. So what we're looking at  now is we have good viable backup trucks to put   on the road and then you're also looking at two  18 to 24 months in getting a vehicle on the road   and if we can pinpoint the vehicles that we need  at that time staying under a million dollars will  

be greatly beneficial to us because we our fleet  is in good shape right now. Um so that is good. So   I'm trying to because which option you know kind  of matters if a million dollar cuz what's going to   happen in 2030 plus one plus is happen is is just  looking around at the counties around us and what   the hair on fire that they are they're in. It's  going to it's coming for us. Now we're going to   try to prevent it as and and hedge it as much as  possible. Make no mistake it's coming for us for   this board. And so, um, what I don't want to do  is, you know, with that in mind, and all that's   going to go to the rateayer. Um, so I want to make  sure that we're, um, what, whichever we choose is   really anticipating, you know, anticipating that  horizon cuz it's and and what can we do? Does this   position us better? Which positions us best for  that that thing that is going to happen? Yeah. So,   one of the one of the things that we do probably  every two to three years, we're going to relook   at this. Um, we think that at this point in  time, a million-doll cap on capital is a viable   way to approach it. Um, this is in chats with  or talks with Kim Hammond, the fleet manager,   um, Nate, his team. Um, and based on what we have,  uh, as far parts of the fleet right now, we feel   like we're in good shape. We think um you know, as  Nate mentioned earlier, they take really good care   of the equipment. Um if we see a a decline where  we're we're having trucks off the road more than   we need them, then that's something that we need  need to monitor very closely. We just don't want   our equipment lining up and being out of shape and  also our Yeah. our fees doubling because there's   nowhere else to send in the trash. And I think  that's kind of my biggest concern is long term  

is That's right. keeping the fleet good. do what  you need to do to keep the fleet good because when   that day of reckoning happens, excuse me, um it's  just not going to be pretty. No, I understand.   Understand. I think I would add a quick note to  yours before I recognize Alderman Brown is that   really our big challenge is more diversion from  the landfill. That's ultimately what we need to   be doing is more recycling. So that's a message  to the to our citizens. Participate in recycling,   which we do have good participation. Yeah, we  have an over 60% participation in the curb side   and then what the SCES team has done with these  drop off sites helps us with glass which we can't   collect curbside and then the larger quantities  of of cardboard. So, we're giving we're providing   some more outlets and and those um initial uh  performance numbers I think are are better than   we expected. So, that I I think you'll see those  built. Yeah. and we're going to continue to look   at options to make sure we keep the rates down.  Yes, hold brown. Um I agree this needs to be self-   sustaining. I I agree. I've never heard service  bragged on more than your own and and you guys   do a great job and and uh we want to keep that  service high. Um I agree we need to stay ahead   of this so we don't have to keep catching up.  We need to we need to continue to keep looking   at it. But I will also say what I said two years  ago. I continue to be concerned about our fixed   income seniors. I really wish as a city we would  come up with a policy we keep we we did property   tax increases, water increases, trash increases.  Um you know I I just I think younger families,   families like my own um we should carry a  little more weight and our fixed income seniors   um I wish we had a policy to give them a break.  We we just hit them hard the last few years and   I think we ought to be looking at that and uh it  may not seem like it much for a few bucks a year  

but it does matter and um I wish we would I wish  we would be looking at that. We we do that. Do   you want to describe that? We provide a discount  for people that are on the property tax the tax   relief programs. They do receive this benefit for  sanitation. For sanitation. The full amount. The   full amount. Yes. On sanitation. On sanitation.  Yes. And we we we've been doing that for for some   time. The the the seniors that qualify for the  tax program also receive this service. That's   a really small number. That's not we have we a  buck a bag anymore. Yes. Yes. Still have that.   Mhm. How how but they don't get they still have  to pay their monthly fee. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. That's   for additional additional capacity. You know, may  I speak? I'm sorry. It's Alman B. Yeah, go ahead.   Alman B. Sorry. Sorry about that. Um, you know,  I'm not interested in like putting a cap on people   who are 65 and above. I mean, how about older  adults? I mean, I just have a constituent that   couldn't he wanted to recycle, but he couldn't  recycle. And um you know $75 just for the can was   pushing it for him right now. And uh so we were  able we were able to do something to get that. I   mean outside the city we were able to provide  that uh for him in a way. Um but I was brought   to my attention. But, you know, there's senior  citizens who are 75, 80 years old and, you know,   some of them would like to be able to make sure  they recycle and they'd like to also, but they're,   you know, sometimes they don't even have a bag  a week. They've got maybe a one bag in there. I   mean, we don't only have one bag. We recycle all  the time. But um I I would think that we could  

take a look around the country and see if there's  anything anyone's doing or if not come up up with   something ourselves and and maybe just up it to  the people who are over 80 or or not just on fixed   income. I mean you know and if we have wealthy  people who are over 80 and they want to pay the   full fee fine let them pay a full fee. Ask them if  they'll continue to do that. I mean, we don't have   to make that. Um, I I just think we had to look at  it something Caesar. Thanks, Mayor. I'm familiar   with the rebate program or the tax deferral or the  fee deferral program for senior citizens or people   that are on a fixed income. How many people do  we know participate in that annually, monthly? um it's an annual eligibility that the this the  county trustee determines for us. I believe last   year it was around was it 220? I think it was 2 or  300. I just wanted to highlight that point because   while it is there, it's it's misleading to say  that it's well used by the the numbers of people   who maybe could. So perhaps we could do a better  job communicating that this is available for those   who live on a on a fixed income. And I think mayor  said something really important about diversion.   I'm somebody that really supports and appreciates  the fact that you have a gr a glass recycling   place and you have a place that's relatively  close to my house that I can take the cardboard   that doesn't fit in my bin. And this would be um  maybe one point on that. If there's something that   limits us from a little bit larger recycling  bin, I may be the only one, but I find myself   jumping up and down on that blue bin. I'm afraid  it's going to jump over with me in it. and and I   know that other communities have an equal size  recycling and waste bin. And if diversion is is   a opportunity for us to save money, let's make it  and as long as the the bin's not four times more,   if you go up a step, then like let's let's  think about that. And then the final piece,  

I share concerns of Alderman Brown that but I  would extend it beyond just the senior citizen   population because there's young people that  live in town homes that I probably quadruple   on a weekly basis their monthly output of trash.  They're not putting curbs or they're not putting   bushes and shrubs on the street. They're not,  you know, trying to feed four kids in a house   that seem to eat through all the cardboard boxes  and just leave waste around. And I I I don't I   don't want to get into just to be really clear,  Nate, you weren't here in in the conversation a   few years ago, but one of the things I was really  interested in is could we come up with a way that   folks that tend to live in a house where there's  fewer people could pay a different rate. Um, and   I think if you live in a 4 or 5,000t house, it's  not definite, but it's likely that you're going to   be disposing of more than if you live in a house  that's under 2500 ft². And I know I'm I'm seeing   Eric's face going, "Holy cow, how do we implement  that?" We we've researched that. Yeah. And maybe   the cost increase when you do that, but I I got  to believe in the spirit of fairness and applying,   if we're trying to get to a fee for service,  I'm getting a heck of a deal at I'm getting a   heck of a deal at $50 a month. And there's people  that are in a neighborhood across the street from   me that I feel like are subsidizing my trash. And  I don't think that's fair. And so I'd love for us   to find a way to to find a middle ground and use  diversion as a way to support that. Thank you,   Mayor. The challenge with that is so much of this  cost is fixed. If if you have one bag of trash or   eight bags of trash, most of that cost is the  same cuz it's the truck, it's the container,   it's the people that are driving the truck. So,  I I get what you're saying and it's logical,   but the reality is that increment and we did a  bunch of research cuz you said the same thing 3   years ago and and it's not wrong, but it's the  reality is that margin is pretty small within  

that that that volume piece that it just doesn't  it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I it's the   sentiment is great. It's wonderful, but the  reality is so much of these costs are already   baked in. And we have a responsibility to sign the  cost if you want to make this self-sufficient. And   that's that's what we're doing here. Uh the the  path for seniors is one that is is need-based. Uh   they've they've got to qualify based on income.  Uh so I think that provides somewhat of an of   a of an opportunity there. Um, we will certainly  promote that more and uh we want to do everything   we can for diversion in these other elements as  well. But I I just don't want to I I I don't want   to hold out a ton of promise. It cost you $40 to  show up at my house, right? I understand. Most of   that number is is baked in regardless of the the  quantity you give us. Even though tip fees matter,   it's it's so much of it's already baked in.  Alderman Barnhill changed your mind. Yeah,   I changed my mind. We we answered the questions  cuz I was going to say that the fixed cost on   this is the largest portion of the cost that's  going into this. But also would I I would say   this kind of on the other side. We just got to be  having explain to us why this is the Cadillac of   SCES and therefore if you got the Cadillac it cost  you more to have that. So if you don't want if you   don't want a $40 fee then maybe it needs to be a  Chevrolet instead of a Cadillac. I don't know. But   uh if you going to you pay for what you got and  I don't think we're having any complaints much on   the service. Mhm. So, I'm looking and I do think  because I went because I was I went through the  

uh self the portion of it when we were pulling for  the from the general fund and I didn't remember   exactly the numbers that we had on it, but I know  we were subsidizing the sanitation department with   several several several million dollars and u  and and the discussion at that particular time,   I still remember one or two of the alderman  saying, "We want to leave it like it is their   comment was this. Your residential rate is not  tax deductible. Property tax at that particular   time was an itemized item on income tax. So  they were looking to be able to keep it on   that. I didn't think that was a necessarily  a particularly great great argument. So I   I would much rather have it where we can see  it self self sustaining than it is to have it   buried into the property tax rate that we've  got. So for those who don't want $40 here,   you can have several cents on the other  side. And I that's not where I want to be. Okay. Uh item 10 is uh ordinance 2026-05 to amend  the Franklin Municipal Code Title 24 special   assessment district to add chapter 5 establishing  policies and procedures relating to consideration   of petitions for the creation of real estate  infrastructure development districts. This is   a pretty straightforward shift. Uh this is really  the mechanics of how we do it. We've been drafting   it as a resolution and statement of board policy.  Uh, and kind of reviewing this with Shauna,   the decision or the the recommendation was made  that it would be cleaner, clearer to make it an   ordinance. That way, it's easier to find and  easier to track than a resolution passed by  

the board in 2026. You know, this would just be  uh more baked into your ordinance is a cleaner,   clearer way to do it. We are pretty confident that  you'll be able to act on the 28th because things   are moving through uh the state legislature.  I think the Senate took action today. No,   they a while back, but the U House voted at their  uh calendar rules today and it goes to calendar   tomorrow. So then it would probably from there  if it passes go straight to the House. Um Senate   passed a few weeks ago. So we knew that but we  just haven't been before you to tell you that. But   we're very close. So we expect you had deferred  it to the 28th for action. We will replace the   resolution with this ordinance and then you can  act. We also will have on the work session as a   first kind of run through the Armistad proposal  for an ID. So you'll have a chance to talk about   that and staff give you a review as well and the  applicant there and so you'll be able to test   drive it on the 28th as well. Alman Brown, my only  question because I think it probably is right.   My only question is we we've said we don't we  don't want to be handing this out to everybody.   You know, we want to be very specific. It it's got  to really meet some criteria. There's times we're   going to use it. There's times we're definitely  not. Does it it it felt like having it be a   resolution made it more flexible. Having it be  an ordinance feels like it's going to be it it   it's a lot more rigor. It's going to require more  modifications. Is it going to lock us in more,   I guess, is my only exact same language. It's  just put in an ordinance, not a resolution.   And that's that's so we can find it. So you have  the same ability to tweak it like you would the   resolution. We just have had enough experience  over the years that sometimes resolutions get   sort of lost in the shuffle when you put it in the  ordinance. It is memorialized and it's there for   you. So there's really no more effort for you to  tweak it or learn from it or change it. So it's  

really just a a better form. Okay, we're jarred.  All right. 10 minutes. He's cutting us all.